Read, read again Ajith

Ajith’s polemical demolition “Against Avakianism” is more than a good critique of erroneous positions and muddled theoretical constructions. In exploring what was fundamentally flawed in packaging a “new synthesis” in the cultist degeneration and revisionism promoted by the RCP,USA, Ajith raises a fruitful exposition of observations and speculations on many topics and questions that constantly face the international communist movement throughout its historic process.

Even in the briefest of treatments – like the section on socialist democracy [102-124] – there is a condensed focus on the lessons drawn and alternative approaches to take in addressing the challenges on the party and socialist state and their operations.

(A more complete presentation on the matter of the party can be found in, The Maoist Party an essay written by K. Murali, also known as Comrade Ajith, from his book Of Concepts and Methods.2020 Foreign Languages Press Collection “New Roads” #9)

Ajith’s critique provides a more inspiring springboard than the work he dissects. In his application of the many insights and observations offered in Mao Zedong’s writings, Ajith corrects Avakian’s distortions and reasserts the creative purposefulness of Maoism.

Amid the discussion around the ideological and theoretical aspects of truth and understanding Marxism as a science, what is clear is the centrality of both the intention and experience of the Cultural Revolution to contemporary MLM. In many of its practices it raised phenomenon and issues that shape an universalist understanding of principles and practices that contribute to human liberation.

Avakian’s claim to go beyond and exceed that experience lies like an image of a by-gone age, a half-ruined folly in the political landscape.

Whereas Ajith pushes forward, not necessarily with complete answers but the interesting questions.

The aim of clarifying the struggle within RIM around Avakian’s attempt to foster upon it his “new synthesis”.

The ambition and vision of RIM as a correct manifestation of internationalism was both attractive and deceptive and other groupings of political allegiance have similarly appeared. The journal “A World To Win” was a platform for organisations providing news and information, reinforcing that sense of internationalism and being part of something much much bigger than parochial concerns. It could raise awareness and organisational abilities, generating international solidarity, co-operation and co-ordination; all powerful elements in sustaining an organisational allegiance to RIM (and the idea of it).

[While Ajith quotes from the (not yet in the public domain) internal journal Struggle to clarify the process that led to RIM’s disintegration, and the subsequent drive to establish a unified international MLM body, important elements are outside the scope of this critique.

But then that is for a different format and publication encompassing a definitive account of the failings of RIM, a political summation, including the input of the PCP after the arrest of Chairman Gonzalo, and the weakening of the “embryo” by the internal struggles over Peru and Nepal, the absences of other major active parties, like in the Philippines etc

A separate website containing links to quoted articles in Against Avakianism has been made available by FLP: against-avakianism/documents/

Ajith begins with setting the circumstances of the early 2012 Special Meeting of the parties and organisation of RIM convened by

Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan

Maoist Communist Party of Italy

Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Naxalbari

An original invitee, the PBSP – Proletarian Party of Purda Bangla [Bangladesh] – was absence, later explaining this was due to political differences with the contents of the Special Meeting. were involved in the consultations during the drafting of the invitation, a delegation of the Red Faction of the Nepalese UCPN( M)  – struggling against the Prachanda/Bhattarai revisionist line – joined as observers .

[The resolutions adopted at the Special Meeting are available on the Maoist Road website]

The background to the need for the Special meeting had been laid out as

“… the present collapse of the RIM is the result of the paralysis of the Committee of the RIM (CoRIM) arising from positions, serious ideological political differences that emerged among some members of the CoRim.”

RIM – RIM Documents and Statements ( –  had emerged in the 1980s as a Maoist grouping, a self-described “embryo” of a new international.  Organisationally, an administrative function was based in London, the CoRIM taking on communication and co-ordination duties, overseeing the publication of the multi-language journal, “A World To Win!”.

The pre-discussion to the Special Meeting had identified the disparaging effects, negatively infecting a line struggle that affected the operation of RIM specifically paralysing the work of the CoRIM. It identified the revisionism of Bob Avakian’s post-MLM new synthesis course and the once lauded Prachanda/Bhattari line that disarmed and disrupted the progress of the Nepalese revolutionary struggle.

Summarising Avakian’s positions and criticisms, Ajith’s “Engaging with the Chairman” defend Mao’s contributions against the view that Avakian’s ideas must be made the basis of the international communist movement. [ pages 12-28] Drawing lines of demarcation as asked, Ajith wrote of the “new synthesis”

“ It has liquidated its ideological moorings by declaring that MLM is outdated and must be replaced with Avakianism.” This was the crutch of the dispute. Furthermore Ajith argued that it was insufficient to simply reactive RIM minus RCP,USA and others that had fallen by the wayside. The original Declaration of RIM was no longer an adequate basis to continue as before, even with a new constituted CoRIM. This did not lessen the need for an international organisation to convey a united revolutionary message and facilitate the development of collective wisdom.

What discernible impact in the real world?

The RCP,USA has failed as a revolutionary project in its social practice. The RCP,USA was flattered by its association with an international grouping that belied its own domestic weakness on the margins of the American left. Its similarities with the Trotskyist cult, the WRP led by Healy, becoming more pronounced with the orchestrated cult of leadership personified in Avakian. A network of bookshops, publishing and newspapers as well as international reach, sustained appearance of organisational strength All these elements partially explain an emphasis on internet-based Leftist news sites as modern equivalents of Lenin’s Iskra approach as the propaganda produced seeks to inspire or produced the desired political effect of building the movement. Far from securing the glow of leadership, Avakian’s well-deserved obscurity reflects the value of the contributions of his RCP’s ruminations-and wranglings.


Against Avakianism 

Foreign Languages Press 2017 “Colorful Classics” #9

Unitary Road Update 2

Totally understandable given the ravages inflicted by the Covid global pandemic, the launch of a new global alliance, the Anti-Imperialist Anti-Fascist United Front (AIAFUF), or simply United Front, was suspended in an announcement from the ILPS in June 2020. The launch of the organisation “will probably take place in early 2021”. The initial registration period for the Front be extended and international formations have until January 31, 2021.

Join the – Llamado a construir el – Rejoignez la Anti-Imperialist Anti-Fascist United Front (AIAFUF)

Whereas other initiatives are directed to co-thinkers in the world communist movement, this an initiative of the International League of Peoples’ Struggle (ILPS) and the International Coordination of Revolutionary Parties and Organizations (ICOR) and allies, incorporates a wide range of forces, drawing on non-party affiliated associations including individual membership for the party-less militant, in a united front political association.

Drawing upon their own experiences in their respective organisations, the structure in becoming envisaged is that the United Front shall be a movement of allied organizations without democratic centralism and a costly and expensive apparatus, so not a new Comintern-type arrangement.  However a serious engagement in the international project of communication, co-operation and co-ordination.

In her statement of the 10th anniversary of ICOR, the ICOR Main Coordinator Monika Gärtner-Engel attributes some of the sustainability and growth of the co-operation and co-ordination of some 60 ICOR member organisations worldwide to fundamental principles;

In the face of many remaining differences among the revolutionaries of the world, common organization on the basis of ideological-political core questions: revolutionary overcoming of the capitalist/imperialist system; perspective of socialism/communism; necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat; leading role of the working class; a clear dividing line to revisionism, anarchism and Trotskyism.”   ICOR, 6 October 2020

[Speaking at the unveiling of the first Lenin statue in West Germany in June, Gabi Fechtner nee Gärtner-Engel, leader of the MLPD since April 2017, stated, “To make it clear: I am neither a Stalinist nor a Maoist – the same goes for the entire MLPD. But we defend the achievements of socialism – and also the representatives of socialism, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao.”


Having posted before that the internet is awash with initiatives to rally to the red flag of revolutionary communism, it is no surprise that there are wide divergences within the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist tendencies from analysis to political terminology that cleaves distinct approaches for those self-identified as Maoist.

The initiative of AIAFUF differs from the distinct if parallel ideological offensive by a handful of organizations make up of a very small fraction of self-identifying Maoists worldwide to try to impose a new idealistic definition of Maoism on all parties fighting for communism in the world. This camp led by the Communist Party of Brazil (Red Fraction) [PCB) regards the AIF as an eclectic front with revisionism and opportunism. They see “the problem in the international communist movement is not primarily related to the fact that Maoism is not formally recognized, but rather to the way some conceive it”.

Simply put: Chairman Gonzalo has hoist higher the flag of Maoism and if that contribution – “the universal validity contributions of the Gonzalo Thought” – is not acknowledged, absolved and actioned, then you are not a Maoist. That definition excludes the Maoist organizations leading the most advanced revolutionary movements today, the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and the Communist Party of the Philippines. Even political opponents will argue that:

“Currently there are four people’s wars that exist today, in Peru, in Turkey, in India and in the Philippines. They are the axis in the proletarian world revolution. In the international communist movement, the red banner for uniting the movement under Maoism and people’s war is being raised.”

40 Years of People’s War in Peru – Long Live the Armed Struggle!

Establishing, as demonstrated by the various historical attempts by international Trotskyism, a small network of international alliances with organizations and groups does not reproduce the influence or effect of the original Comintern. The failure to seriously address the only international Maoist movement that has existed to date, and explain the experience of the RIM, simply in terms of the revisionist positions developed by Avakian and betrayal of the Nepalese revolution, hampers the difficulties in restructuring a supportive internationalist structure through an ideological struggle over the definition of Maoism on the basis that it will give a new impetus to the global proletarian revolution.

The Maoist road grouping suggests, “CoRIM became arrogant and with its subjective evaluations and sectarian attitude created obstacles and harms to the International Maoist movement. It is important that a summation of its experiences will include a review of its ideological, political positions in its Declaration of foundation.” (emphasis added)

The paused attempt to achieve a large unified international conference of all the MLM Parties and Organization saw a joint proposal dated last April, signed by the Committee for Building the Maoist Communist Party, Galicia, Spanish State, Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan, Communist Worker Union (MLM) – Colombia and the Maoist Communist Party – Italy to act as the promotors to convene the Unified International Conference with bilateral and multilateral meetings. The Committee proposed is not a new International Organization neither the Organising Committee of the International Conference but an attempt to move the process forward amidst the pandemic.

So far engagement in a disembodied ideological struggle has strengthen the self-isolation of currents within “global Maoism” from each other, and brought out the sectarian rhetoric from the prominent to the marginal:

“Defend Marxism-Leninism-Maoism Against Gonzaloite Revisionism!” was the position advanced in April 2020 from the American Organizing Committee for a Maoist Communist Party (MCP-OC). It argued “the defeated people’s war in Peru represented the creative application of MLM to the Peruvian conditions; this alone does not constitute a new ‘Thought,’ any more than the petulant hooliganism of our comrades in Austin might be called ‘Com. Dallas Thought’!”

The consequences may well prove correct Canadian critics of all the “participant” in this internationalist architectural drive; they comment that,

“recent events have confirmed that not only are the idealistic and the true Maoists not part of the same movement, but that this scenario will never happen. Indeed, the political options defended on both sides are so divergent that they are unassimilable to each other.” [Maoism as in itself: against the idealism of the “mainly Maoist” current. Iskra  January 26, 2020]

However these critics are unlikely to be invited by any of the proposed international conferences as, by definition, they exclude themselves in their quirky argumentation that

“the Chinese cultural revolution, although a highly positive experience and one with fundamental lessons, has a lesser importance that the experience of more than twenty years of armed struggle and united front preceding the seizure of power in 1949. We say that it is mainly – if not almost entirely – in the experience of the prolonged people’s war in China that Maoism finds its material origin, and only in a secondary way in the cultural revolution.”

This, a marginal position, reverses the roots of Maoists for the last half century and predates (and negates) consideration of the cultural revolution as the greatest and most original contribution of Mao to the development of Marxism-Leninism in order to combat modern revisionism, prevent the restoration of capitalism and consolidate socialism. It is a position that dismisses the struggles over Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought, Maoism and continuity and rupture that has drawn the contours of 21st Century Maoism.


The first known use of Maoism was in 1950 according to Merriam-Webster.

Unitary Road Update

2020 began with reports from Maoist Road of a successful International preparatory meeting held in Italy in January before the lockdown.

Arguing for a method of unity-struggle-unity and against the spirit of faction and division, the PCm has striven through the Maoist Road sharing of information and campaigns and other avenues, for organizations “to arrive at the widest possible unity of the MLM movement”. [i]

There discussions were developed regarding the conditions, the need and possibility of holding a Conference grandly envisaged as a Unified International of Marxist Leninist Maoists of all countries.

The main organising sponsor the PCm Italy issued a message that spoke of

“The battle for the unity of the MLM communist movement, the struggle between the two lines within it, the definition of a common platform, the organized form with which to continue this work require, as we know, a prolonged work which demands preparatory meetings, new bilateral and multilateral meetings, as well as the exchange of documents, initiatives aimed at the masses, on the tortuous but luminous path of the realization of a Unified International Conference of the communist movement MLM that wins over the fragmentation, surpassing the effects of the collapse of the Rim and responds to the need to unify MLM on the basis of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, on the basis of a critical-self-critical assessment of the general experience of the RIM and other attempts to formation of an international organization.”

Previously the PCm had said “let’s work together for an International Conference of mlm parties and organisations in the world against revisionism, opportunism and pretty bourgeos leftism masked by ‘maoism’.” No names named this time.

Internet commentator, Harsh Thakor [ii] (coincidentally after interviewing exiled Philippine communist Jose Maria Sison) was not so circumspect arguing comrades must make a distinction between the positive practice of Communist Party of Peru (PCP) under Chairman Gonzalo and the most sectarian interpretation, naming Gonzaloists like RGA groups in America, some of which are now defunct , the German Committee Red Flag associated with Dem Volke Dienen website and those around Tjen Folket Media. He references Kenny Lake’s critical exploration of the debate around the universality of protracted people’s war (PPW) [iii], and the scathing criticism in Andy Belasario in PRISM blog, On the so-called University of Protracted People’s War and thethe dubious genius of a Gonzalo….his flip-flop from “Left” opportunism to Right opportunism, which has caused the people’s war to decline and nearly total defeat in Peru”. [iv]

Even before the enforced pause brought about by Covid 19, the conditions for convening the unified international conference have been absence with 2020 the year of alternative planning for separate developments on the unitary road in the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist tendencies.

Sison is involved in a big call for the new decade in what was set to be a year of competing “internationals”. Issued jointly at the end of December 2019, after months of discussions and exchanges between the International Coordination of Revolutionary Parties and Organizations (ICOR) and the International League of Peoples’ Struggle (ILPS), two international anti-imperialist formations, the organisations entered the fray inviting others to join them in part of a new global alliance: The Anti-Imperialist Anti-Fascist United Front (AIAFUF), or simply United Front. [v]

What is envisaged is that the United Front shall be a movement of allied organizations without democratic centralism and a costly and expensive apparatus, so not a new Comintern-type arrangement. A challenging timetable was set with the promise that “The Front will be launched before the end of June 2020.”

The problems of establishing and agreeing a general orientation involved in uniting on a common platform was illustrated in an article ‘Maoism as in itself: against the idealism of the “mainly Maoist” current’ from the Canadian PRC-RCP – the Quebec Continuator group – that lays into the Communist Party of Brazil (Red Fraction), Struggle Sessions group, the Maoist Communist Party in France (despite its ambivalence), and domestically swipes at “intellectual revisionist Joshua Moufawad-Paul”. Factional fighting and name calling are milestones on the road to demarcation but can the direction of travel be to a unitary destination? The conclusion in the reassuringly-named ISKRA is hard to reject:

Currently, there is no, such a thing as an international Maoist movement per se. What exists are Maoist parties and organizations with more or less strong links between them, and in many cases without links at all. For a movement to exist, there must be unity, even if it is relative: common objectives, regular exchanges of experience, close collaboration and solid organizational links. If there is no unity at all, there is no movement. In history, the only time that an international Maoist movement actually existed was when the Internationalist Revolutionary Movement (RIM) was in place. Ironically, this experience, the partisans of the idealist tendency reject it under the pretext that the RIM defended a “disjointed and eclectic” conception of Maoism. The PCB (FR) declared last year that “in today’s world, unlike the founding or existence of the RIM, a revitalized international communist movement has flourished and developed”. This is a mind-blowing statement totally disconnected from the real world situation.” [vi]

Indeed dismissive of the whole engagement in the international project of communication, co-operation and co-ordination – they were never members of RIM – the Canadian group reflects a fundamentalist stance that

If we want Marxism to once again become a powerful weapon in the hands of the popular masses, we will have to put an end once and for all to literary leftism and petty-bourgeois pseudo-Maoism. That said, it is in the material world, and not in the world of ideas, that the idealist and postmodern currents will be swept away. It is through real practice, and not through an endless ideological struggle to reach the purest concepts, that the problem that these idealist currents represent will be resolved.

It is not likely they will be engaged in the debates and manoeuvres or overblown rhetoric on the road to establishing a durable structure for international relations with like-minded comrades. The advice from the Maoist era was clear: “the CPC, to its credit, refused a hegemonic role…and constantly drummed into overseas Maoists the need to think independently about their own conditions” [vii]


[i] January 2020

[ii] On the Theory of International Proletariat Military tactics of Mao and Chairman Gonzalo February 12, 2020




[vi]   ISKRA January 26, 2020  

 [vii] Biel, Robert (2015) Eurocentrism and the Communist Movement. Montreal: Kersplebedeb p162.


Chile: An Attempt at “Historic Compromise”

Chile: An Attempt at Historic Compromise-The Real Story of the Allende Years, by Jorge Palacios (1926-2004).

Published in Spanish language edition in 1977, the first in English was produced by the Canadian-based Norman Bethune Institute connected to Hardial Bains-led CPC (ML), as well as an English translation of the RCP Chile: Open Letter to the Communist Party of China .

Its National Publications Centre assisted in other Spanish language publications of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Chile produced by its Ediciones Marxista-leninistes publishing house in Toronto. One such text was the collection, “50 issues of EL PUEBLO clandestinely” covering the years 1974-1977 of the Chilean paper. There was also the use of material from ANCHA, monthly of the Chilean Anti-Fascist News Agency, produced by the external section of the Frent Del Paeblo (People’s Front) established by the RCPC.

However the relationship faded as the RCPC, although aligned with the anti- three worlds position of the Albanian party, gradually moved away as Albanian criticism expanded to encompass condemnation of Mao Zedong. The organisation’s paper, El Pueblo carried its view in the article “Comrade Mao Tsetung was a great Marxist-Leninist and a great internationalist” (#101 October 1978). Such an appreciation differed from the trajectory in Enver Hoxha’s book Imperialism and the Revolution , first published [in Albanian] in April 1978 for distribution within the PLA, then multi-language editions distributed internationally in the December.

The Chilean party did not become part of the Albanian grouping but joined with the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) led by Avakarin in efforts to establish an international alignment of Maoist parties who rejected the successors of the Mao Zedong as they drew up a joint declaration with the RCP setting forth, “Basic Principles for the Unity of Marxist-Leninists and for the Line of the International Communist Movement.” The RCP-Chile played an important formative role in the regroupment of Maoists after 1976 (according to one participant)

“presenting a form of communist thinking and politics that was marked by its both creative and fiercely revolutionary character. A few of the RCP-Chile’s writings have been broadly available. In the crucial period around 1980, the RCP-Chile (and its leading figures in post-coup exile in Europe) actively helped regroup Maoists internationally, in the project that would give rise to the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement.” [i]

Chile speaking tour

The RCP run Chicago publishing house, Banner Press took on Chile: An Attempt at Historic Compromise and published its English language edition in November 1979. The book was made available in the U.S. in conjunction with a nationwide tour by the author being sponsored by El Frente del Pueblo, a mass organization of the Chilean resistance abroad as well as in Chile. It helped pave the way to the U.S. tour by Jorge Palacios with the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA actively building support for the tour.

The favourable RCP, USA review of “an excellent Marxist analysis” notes: “The book documents in painful detail the efforts of the CP to restrain and derail the mass movement of the workers and the oppressed, all the while protecting the bourgeois state and other reactionary institutions from the attack of the masses. As Palacios points out, this was a policy which the CP had pursued for many decades and for which it was rewarded by being allowed to be one of the few Communist Parties in Latin America that enjoyed a long period of legal, open activity…. While An Attempt At Historic Compromise correctly concentrates on unmasking the falsifiers of Marxism and the revisionist CP, it also serves as excellent material exposing the U.S. imperialists’ crimes and intrigues in Chile.” [ii]

An academic review thought that,

“This is by no means a scholarly work. There is no pretense to objectivity. This should not deter scholars from using Palacios’s work, however, in order to learn still more of the inside story of recent Chilean political history. As an inside view, it is quite valuable.” [iii]

And indeed, there is a section in the book where Jorge Palacios also discusses the views and activities of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Chile all during this period. The account Palacios provides found expression in English,  French  and Spanish editions.

There was another consequence in the appearance of the Banner Press edition as it was the focus of a letter from Joseph Green, for the leadership of COUSML, the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists, to their fraternal comrades in the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist). Dated December 1st1979 raised their astonishment and register protest at

…. the recent action of the CPC (M-L) in selling the rights to the book by Jorge Palacios entitled Chile: An Attempt at “Historic Compromise” to the utterly corrupt and rotten to the core American neo-revisionist and “three worlder” sect known as the so-called “Revolutionary Communist Party of the U.S.A.” ….was carried out without consultation with us. Indeed, it was carried out without even notifying us. It in fact amounted to a violation of the most elementary norms of fraternal relations between parties. ….” [iv]

In their exposition of some of the issues involved in the sale of the rights of the book by Palacios to the “RCP, USA.”, the aggrieved comrades argued that Hardial Bains led CPC (ML) had failed to foresee the difficulties that have come up in this question of the selling of the rights to the Palacios book involve a major tactical blunder as well as a violation of principles.

The points these slighted comrades made were that the Palacios tour had great significance. With it, RCP of Chile unilaterally and by surprise, broke its relations with the COUSML in a very unprincipled manner and publicly concluded an alliance with the “RCP, USA.”. Although the reason behind the break was clearly understood:

“… it has broken relations with us because we stand for carrying the struggle against Chinese revisionism through to the end, because we have denounced Mao Zedong Thought, and because we defend socialist Albania.”

“Instead of carefully sorting out the issue of Mao Zedong Thought, it has instead gone onto a very dangerous anti-Marxist path…..We are in no hurry to come to a final conclusion on the RCP of Chile, and we hope that they desist from the path they have taken. It would be a pity and a loss to the international movement if this Party which has shed its blood in the struggle against reaction, does not stop and reconsider this very dangerous and slippery inclined slope that it has set foot on.”

Joseph Green told his Canadian allies they did not regard the selling of the rights to the book as just a run-of-the-mill business dealing related to the routine commercial operations in the book and pamphlet trade which are part and parcel of the operation of the National Publications Centre. They saw it first and foremost as a political act.

With the rights to the Palacios book in the hands of CPC(M-L) it had been “a definite thorn in the side of the “RCP, USA” a political embarrassment for them, instead COUSML faced the aftermath of the action of the Chilean party, its “unprincipled dropping of relations with us and the establishment of relations with the “RCP, USA” and what that signified”.

“….the “RCP, USA’s” publishing of this book was used as a way to make it appear that the “RCP, USA,” which in actual fact had never done any work at all for the support of the resistance movement of the Chilean people, was actually a supporter and enthusiast of the solidarity movement.”

“Helping the “RCP, USA” to find a way to promote itself internationally, especially among certain forces in Latin America which are still considering the question of Mao Zedong Thought and which have respect for the RCP of Chile, although they do not presently follow the position of the RCP of Chile.”

“…. furthermore the CPC(M-L) puts itself in the apparent position of having worked with the “RCP, USA,” even though only on this transaction, even though for the present apparently neither the “RCP, USA” nor you yourself wish to publicize this particular transaction.”

COUSML complained this act violated the elementary norms of fraternal relations which were to deteriorate and eventually broken off.

“You did not even notify us about it. Finally it came up in discussions in early November between our two Parties because our delegate, asked you a direct question about how the “RCP, USA” got the lights to the book.

To us, this lack of consultation is truly astonishing.”

…. Our two Parties may not always agree on certain tactical issues, but that does not give you the right to unilaterally undertake actions such as the selling of the rights to the Palacios book that affect us first and foremost and undermine our stands and struggle.”

… This question of consultation and cooperation is important in itself in the strengthening of the relations between our two Parties. But it is also important in particular in the question of the struggle against revisionism and opportunism.”


[i] Mike Ely of the now defunct Kasama project (2007-2013) highlighted the theoretical work of Chile’s Revolutionary Communist Party as they summed up their experiences in the Allende years, the Pinochet coup, and the international communist movement. These essays are from the period of the late 1970s to 1981 when the RCP of Chile was seeking to help regroup the international communist movement, and thinking through the implications of events in China in the post-Mao period. Kasama, thanking those who did the work of making this material available and Rosa Blanc, provided pdfs in Spanish of several issues of the organization’s theoretical journal Causa Marxista-Leninista.

Causa Marxista-Leninista, Issue #27

Causa Marxista-Leninista, Issue #28

Causa Marxista-Leninista, Issue #29

Causa Marxista-Leninista, Issue #30

[ii] Reviewed

[iii] Frederick M. Nunn Hispanic American Historical Review (1981) 61 (2): 330–331.

[iv] The truth about the relations between the Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA and the Communist Party of Canada (M-L)



Comintern Again

How to honour and uphold the historic significance of the slogan raised by Marx and Engels in Communist Manifesto: Workers of the World Unite!

 Even before the new century there were conscious efforts to find adequate avenues to expression internationalism among co-thinkers that challenged a legacy from the Communist Party of China against rebuilding another Communist International. Such indifference had influenced vast sections of the embryonic Marxist-Leninist forces that emerged in the 1960s.

 Observing the Centenary of the Communist International is not a ritual or mere academic exercise. The contemporary organisations want to develop from bilateral relations and exchanges. Part of the contemporary drive to have a structure to express the internationalism and solidarity is motivated by the belief that the creation of militantly engaged parties, on a national scale, will be giant steps towards a new mass international, however we cannot wait for the emergence of such parties before developing the scaffolding of such an international in the period ahead. Across the leftist spectrum of communist organisations there are expressions of the intention of re-establishing the Marxist-Leninist international, often demanding energetic efforts, with the provision according to present concrete conditions, for the rebuilding of a Communist International.

Even its enemies recognised the impetus the Comintern gave: the CIA analysis, The Third (Communist) International: Structure and functions. Interim Report November 1, 1947, was that

“During the twenty-four years of its official existence the Third (Communist) International played a key role in the world-wide organisation and development of the revolutionary Marxist movement. As the first global political machine in history, it coordinated the efforts of groups of determined and fanatical agitators and revolutionaries in almost every nation and colonised area of the world. To no small degree the enormous growth of world communism in our generation has been due to its integrating and compulsive force.”

There are various contending poles of attractions that are pretty much self-defining since the demise of RIM.

See previous postings

Italian initiative posted on Maoist Road website (July 29, 2019) in the year of the 100th anniversary of the Communist Third International, “let us organize a preparatory meeting this year” inviting all 15 parties and organisations that signed the MAY DAY Joint Declaration 2019 were invited to the preparatory meeting suggested for Italy in January 2020. The call also reached out to all parties and organisations that did not signed, to participate if they ask with a letter to info

The rallying call ending with the slogans


Organisations associated with 2019 joint May day declaration:

Committee for Building the Maoist Communist Party, Galicia, Spanish State
Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan
Communist Party of Nepal (Revolutionary Maoist)
Communist Party of Turkey / Marxist – Leninist
Democracy and Class Struggle, British State
Elkadehin Party , Tunisie
Maoist Communist Party of France
Maoist Communist Party – Italy
Maoist Communist Party Manipur
Maoist Revolutionary League – Sri Lanka
New communist party – Tunisia ( under foundation)
Red Youth of Germany
Revolutionary Communist Party (PCR-RCP Canada)
Union Obrera Comunista (MLM) – Colombia
Workers Voice – Malaysia

Around the same time (July 20, 2019) Maoist Outlook, a Nepalese magazine published an editorial entitled “Let us prepare for building proletarian international!”

“After the death of Mao, the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM) that was constituted among revolutionary communist parties and organisations of different countries on the theoretical foundation and ideological guideline of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism had played an important role for revolution. The new democratic and socialist revolutions and the national liberation movements had started developing in several countries in a new way. But, as a result of serious right-revisionist deviation in a section of main leadership rank of the erstwhile Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and in the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA as well the RIM has reached an almost dead and defunct condition now. Hence, the RIM cannot work anymore, and the need to form a new international has been imminent task.

Several communist parties and organisations that were inside and outside of RIM are actively engaged in revolution today. Besides, new Maoist parties have been built up in many countries in this course. Their concern of building a revolutionary international is growing and some efforts are also underway in this process. But, they are still inadequate.

Therefore, we have to pay special attention to building a proletarian international, now. In this context, we have to pay special attention mainly in two things. Firstly, the ideological basis of such an international should be Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and the parties’ political programmes should correspond to the socio-economic condition of the given country and secondly, the Maoist parties and organisations, no matter which were and which were not in RIM before, should create a common understanding among them going through intensive and extensive interactions and necessary two-line struggles. We have to make a special effort for both of these tasks. This is how the proletarian international can be built.

Dear comrades, imperialism, different forms of reactions and right-revisionism can create hindrances to this task and our own limitations and weaknesses too can stand as challenges before this mission. We have to go ahead confronting all the hindrances and challenges of this sort. Let us unite and come forward for the preparation of building a proletarian international on the basis of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!….”

There are existing “poles of attraction” – as explored in previous postings – including ICOR associated with the international work of the German party, MLPD. Although an ideologically heterogeneously association of more than 40 “autonomous, independent and self-reliant” communist parties and organizations, the CPI (ML) Red Star, sees its participation in the International Coordination of the Revolutionary Parties and Organizations (ICOR) as constituting “an initial step towards rebuilding the Communist International “.It does not mean creating a copy or replica of the Communist International reconstituted in 1919. It states:

“Firstly, it should be rebuilt according to present concrete situation, taking in to consideration the vast changes that have taken place in the objective conditions during the last century, especially after the dissolution of the CI. Secondly, it should be rebuilt based on a thorough evaluation of the experience of the CI during the 24 years of its existence. Thirdly, it should be taken up as a process involving ever increasing number of the Marxist-Leninist parties and Organizations and through continuous deliberations among them. It is based on these concepts.

The whole process calls for serious discussions among the constituents as well as all other revolutionary organizations which have not become part of this process .”

—   K N Ramachandran Editor, (2019) Proletarian Internationalism Demands Initiating Reorganisation of the Communist International .New Delhi: Red Star Publications

Already there has been a failed attempt to replicate and replace the 3rd International when in September 1938, the founding conference of the Fourth International was held near Paris. That attempt has a fractured sectarian history as Trotskyists co-thinkers compete for the mantle and claiming to be a leadership worthy of the name. The Fourth International of 21 delegates was unable to play a decisive role in the post-war period; it did not succeed in becoming a structure that could unite Trotskyists let alone become a mass force because of its flawed politics – seeing itself born out of “the greatest defeats of the proletariat in history” –  together with sectarian divisions amongst self-proclaimed Trotskyists and the mistakes made by its leaders.

In the centenary of its founding it is informative to review why the Comintern was dissolved. When the Second Congress of the Comintern took the decision to build it as a ‘united world party of the international proletariat’, the CPSU was the only leading party and the possibility for revolution breaking out in a number of countries had looked imminent. But soon the international scene had changed with the imperialists re-establishing their dominance.

Along with this, in the following decades many communist parties emerged which were leading the revolutionary struggles in their country. They were developing their tactical line according to conditions in their country. As pointed out in the Statement dissolving the Comintern in 1943 itself:

“The Seventh Congress of the Communist International held in 1935, taking into consideration the changes which had come to pass in the international situation as well as in the labour movement, changes which demanded greater flexibility and independence for its sections in solving the problems facing them , then emphasized the need for the E.C.C.I., when deciding upon all problems of the labour movement, “to proceed from the concrete situation and specific conditions obtaining in each particular country and as a rule avoid direct intervention in internal organizational matters of the Communist Parties.”

1935 Comintern leadership.png

The leadership of the Communist International in 1935.

Front row,from left to right: G. Dimitrov, P. Togliatti, W. Florin, Wang Ming;

back row: O. W.Kuusinen, K. Gottwald, W. Pieck and D. S. Manuilski.

According to this 1943 Statement: “Proceeding from the above-stated considerations, and taking into account the growth and political maturity of the Communist Parties and their leading cadres in individual countries, and also in view of the fact that during the present war a number of sections have raised the question of dissolution of the Communist International”, after seeking opinion of the presidium members, the ECCI decided to dissolve the Comintern in June, 1943.

Had the issue been raised prior to 1943?

“On the evening of 20 April 1941, after a concert of Tajik performers at the Bolshoi Theater, members of the Soviet leadership, including Dimitrov, had enjoyed dinner and drinks. When a toast was proposed to Dimitrov’s health, Stalin suddenly remarked: “Comm[unist] Parties ought to be made independent, instead of sections of the CI.” He added that they had to take root in their own countries and focus on their own specific objectives, goals hampered by their existence as sections of the Comintern.”

Secret Cables of the Comintern, 1933-1943 (2014)

From the sympathetic left there has developed a spectrum of criticism around the 7th Congress as Neil Redfern recalls,

the MLPC published The Unholy Alliance: the United Front against Fascism and War. This document (written by me) made many correct criticisms of Comintern policy, but effectively treated the post-1935 Comintern as a counter-revolutionary organisation, rather than as one making serious opportunist errors. Unsurprisingly, it was roundly criticised at the conference which founded the RIM. Accusations of Trotskyism were made.”

On the occasion of its centenary, the following documents look at why it was dissolved in 1943.

  • The ECCI PRESIDIUM, Recommending the Dissolution of the Communist International   001 
  • The ECCI PRESIDIUM, On the Dissolution of the Communist International 002
  • J.V. Stalin, On the Dissolution of the Communist International 003
  • Extract from The Diary of Georgi Dimitrov 1933–1949 004

And Chinese reaction from

A criticism by the Editorial Board of The Marxist-Leninist (August, 2010)…reproduced in CPI(ML) Red Star pamphlet, Proletarian Internationalism Demands Initiating Reorganization of the Communist International edited by: K N Ramachandran.

 After mentioning that Communist International played an important role in helping to form communist parties in various countries and in stimulating their growth, he [Zhou Enlai] states out-rightly:

“But by the time these parties grew up and matured, there was no longer any need for the Communist International to exist”. … For him the Communist International had only the limited role of helping the formation of the communist parties. He continues his negative approach to the Communist International again as follows: “Under the present circumstances if a new international organisation should be established it would be difficult to achieve political and economic equality among its members.” … the CPC accepted its dissolution in 1943. And it never called for re-organising the Communist International. Nor it took any steps in this direction even after putting forward A Proposal Concerning the General Line of the ICM in 1963 openly condemning the capitalist path of the Soviet leadership. This negative attitude of the CPC leadership towards the Marxist-Leninist approach of building the unity among the Communist Parties at international level along with its failure to develop the understanding about neo-colonisation put forward in 1963 based on developing the understanding about imperialism led by US imperialism in the post-World War II decades played an important role in the setbacks suffered by the ICM.

There is an appeal to the Cultural Revolution… one has to ask what the CPC leadership did when the CPI(ML) had raised the slogan “Chinese Path is Our Path and China’s Chairman Our Chairman”, and was trying to copy the Chinese Path mechanically. Did the CPC leadership do anything when the Lin Piao’s book ‘Long Live the Victory of People’s War’ was published in 1965 calling on all newly formed ML organizations to mechanically copy the CPC line? As far as we know the first critic of some of these aspects came only in 1971 when Souren Bose met them. Nobody knows what self-criticism Chou or CPC leadership did for these grievous mistakes. Was it not a fact that, by rejecting all efforts to rebuild the CI as an international platform of the communist organizations, the CPC leadership was shutting down all possibilities for discussion and development of the 1963 General Line according to fast developing international situation?

After Lenin’s death, the 6th Congress was convened only in 1928, and the function of the Comintern was mostly carried out by the ECCI. The 7th Congress was convened only in 1935 and the CI was dissolved in 1943. It shows that during Stalin’s period adequate regular attention was not given to analyze the unfolding situation and to amend the structure of Comintern according to the new situation. Besides, though constant discussions among the leaders of the communist parties were required to develop the strategy and tactics to be followed in the fast changing new situation, it did not take place. So, the form and content of the Comintern could not be developed according to the needs of the fast changing world situation, The differences in the approach to various problems went on increasing, creating a situation when the CI had to be dissolved. Communist parties should learn from this.

The view that dissolution saw the removal of some latent threat of a Communist World Revolution, although with the adoption of the United Front Against Fascism in 1935 by the Comintern, a defensive policy as a response to the triumph of fascism in Italy, Germany and other countries, it is often claimed that the main aim of this policy was defence of the Soviet Union, the only socialist country in the world, and not the advancement of proletarian revolution.

The 1943 anti-communist sentiment was that the ending of the Comintern was not to give the Communists full political autonomy, but to enable them to increase their influence in the national frame-work in their own countries. However, far from being under national camouflage the communists in fascist occupied nations were core to the national resistance movements of their native countries. While other constituent parties like the Communist Party of Great Britain, in the “democratic” imperialist countries had (since 1935) abandon their overt revolutionary aims for the time being and sought to form broadly based alliances, e.g. with social democratic parties, to defend bourgeois democracy.

  • Revolutionary Praxis analysis

“In Georgi Dimitrov’s report to the 7th. Comintern Congress in 1935 he had attacked what he called “national nihilism”. Communists were internationalists but according to Dimitrov this did not mean that they did not identify with particular nations, e.g. France, Britain. On the contrary, claimed Dimitrov, they should show themselves to be the most diligent defenders of their own countries against foreign enemies. So in Britain the CPGB attacked the Chamberlain Government on the grounds that it was not defending British interests in the face of Italian and German imperialism. With the commencement of World War Two the British communists did oppose the inter-imperialist war but somewhat uneasily. After the entry of the Soviet Union into World War they could wholeheartedly support the British state’s war drive. The same was true of the French communists who although they resisted the German occupation after 1941 supported the restoration of the pre-war French state and actually voted in favour of its efforts to retrieve its colonial possessions, e.g. Indo-China.

In the case of the CPGB their support for British bourgeois democracy led on to them completely abandoning a revolutionary road to socialism and instead they adopted a revisionist programme in 1951, The British Road to Socialism, whereby they claimed that socialism could be brought about in Britain by peaceful parliamentary means, i.e. by means of using an imperialist capitalist state. For them, Britain was different.

Notes on International Communist Policy 1935 to 1941

Posted on July 21, 2019

It seems that the aim of the 7th Congress of the Communist Third International in the year 1935, regarding the establishment of a People’s Front in all the countries of the world in collaboration with the (before opposed) Social-Democrats and left-wing bourgeois element, was been reached ten years later in 1945. In this year the Communists entered the Government in France and in Italy.


The Bill Bland led Communist League (UK) long advocated an original approach to the history of the Comintern, and the lessons this history teaches militants the world over. This viewpoint argues

– that the Comintern was hijacked by revisionists by 1928 onwards.

-Whereas the standard view* is that the Bulgarian Georgi Dimitrov, was Stalin’s close confidant and trusted ally, when he served as secretary general of the Communist International (Comintern) from 1934 to its dissolution in 1943, Bland’s minority position was that the leadership of the Comintern was dominanted by revisionists , naming the revisionists as : Georgi Dimitrov (General Secretary) (Bulgaria), Otto Kuusinen (Finland), Dmitry Manuilsky (USSR), Andre Marty (France), Wilhelm Pieck (Germany), Palmiro Togliatti (Italy).

– that it has become a dogma in the Marxist-Leninist world that to reject Trotskyism is to embrace the Comintern. But Bland argues this mechanical position leads to the incorrect view, that Stalin was in agreement with “the Comintern’s disastrous policies, towards fascism – for instance.”

(*SEE: Dimitrov and Stalin, 1934-1943: Letters from the Soviet Archives. Edited by Alexander Dallin and Fridrikh Igorevich Firsov; Translated by Vadim Staklo. (2000) Yale University Press)

In a paper delivered to The Stalin Society in London, September 2000, Stalin and the Comintern, drawing on a novel position advanced by Bill Bland’s analysis, showing the variance of Stalin’s views with those of the Comintern, Steinmayr argued that:

“the dissolution of the Communist International in 1943… took place without convening a congress and, allegedly, as a result of the “growth and political maturity” reached by its communist parties. But clearly, this could not be the case, since within a short time from its dissolution most of the communist parties embraced revisionism of one sort or another and found themselves in a state of mutual ideological conflict. By declaring that its dissolution had been “proper and timely”, Stalin must have reached the conclusion that, under its revisionist leadership, the Comintern had ceased to be of any use as an organ of the socialist revolution. That Stalin and the Marxists-Leninists did not agree that a real international was no longer necessary is shown by the fact that in 1947, on Stalin’s personal initiative, a new Marxist-Leninist international, on a restricted basis, was set up in the shape of the Communist Information Bureau, or Cominform, under a new leadership which excluded Dimitrov and Manuilsky. Significantly, the first acts of the Cominform were to express strong criticism of the revisionist lines of such communist parties as those of France, Italy, Japan and, later, Yugoslavia.”

Bland, argued in Compass (January 1995, No. 116), that in approving the dissolution of the Communist International, Stalin was clearly, if obliquely, expressing the view that this organisation no longer served the interests of the world working class so that its dissolution, while a concession to imperialism, was not an opportunist concession. An argument perhaps in response to some bourgeois commentators’ assertion that the dissolution came about as Stalin wished to calm his imperialist allies and keep them from suspecting the Soviet Union of pursuing a policy of trying to foment revolution in other countries. Clutching at straws, they point out the coincidence that the decision occurred five days before the arrival in Moscow of President Roosevelt’s personal representative Joseph Davis!

Stalin, in Bland’s scenario, as a profound Marxist-Leninist could not oppose the dissolution of the Communist International because, as a loyal Marxist-Leninist Stalin was bound by the principles of democratic centralism, and could not directly express the real reasons that it was revisionist-led and so no, longer served the interests of the world’s working class. But, as a profound Marxist-Leninist, Stalin supported the dissolution of the Comintern in order that he might take the initiative in replacing it by a new organisation that would be led by Marxist-Leninists.

See also: Communist League, GEORGI DIMITROV: TOOL OF IMPERIALISM Compass March 1994 No. 112

What we do know: The Comintern was dissolved by decree in 1943. Post-facto ratification of the dissolution decree by individual sections was a pragmatic rather than constitutional procedure. However the bureaucratic structure, the personnel assignments and the delegated functions as they existed in the 1930s were actually liquidated, overseen by Dimitrov, Manuilski, Pleck and Togliatti.











MLM Line Struggle on new internationalism

IMG_001In the second decade of the 21st century the calls for a substantive gathering of organisations and parties have grown in recent years, there is an added sense of urgency provided by the 100th anniversary celebration of the Communist International, inaugurated on March 6, 1919 with its First Congress in Moscow. It is widely seen as “the highest form of proletarian internationalism and international organization of the proletariat as a world class.”

May Day 2019, fifteen organisations pledge to organize a preparatory meeting this year for an International Joint Conference of the MLM parties and organizations stating this was a call for a unity based on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, on the path of people’s war for the development of the world proletarian revolution. [2019 MAY DAY RED AND INTERNATIONALIST !]

Other groupings equally publicize that they are making strides towards holding the ‘United Maoist International Conference’ UMIC. that started as an initiative in the Meetings of MLM Parties and Organizations in Latin America associated with Communist Party of Brazil – Red Fraction and Communist Party of Ecuador – Red Sun.[i] Existing forums, and the existence of other initiatives, such as “Maoist Road” are associated with various “united front” approaches, are not regarded in the same light as an ideological-defined international. Ever since May 2016 and the 5th Meeting of MLM Parties and Organizations of Latin America, parties and organizations from different parts of the world started to work systematically for the preparation of a Unified Maoist International Conference.

What it hopes for is that the proposed “International Maoist International Conference will seal and open. It will seal an entire stage of struggle of the communists in the struggle against the dispersion of forces and open a new phase in the struggle of the Communists for the reconstitution of the Communist International.”.

In returning to the theme of ‘global Maoism’ and the search for consolidation evidence of an enduring transnational ideological appeal, the focus is on the contribution offered from South America. In one camp much of the theoretical justification draws upon the work of the Communist Party of Brazil – Red Fraction in El Maoista magazine. An emerging network of fraternal groups are raising fundamental questions and problems of advancing a two-line struggle in the international communist movement. Principally advancing the contribution of the universal validity of Gonzalo Thought and of People’s war in their particular understanding of Maoism.[2]

The focus on the nature and form of the revolutionary party and task of initiating the People’s war divides maoist organisations with some of those engaged in armed struggle against it ( as with the Communist Party of the Philippines), while others in far from favourable conditions, supporting it.[3]


An alternative view from South America that illustrates some of the difficulties in arriving at an agreed position is in the Columbian view [4] that covers the divisions in historical legacy and contemporary strategy equally intent to unite the various self-identifying Maoist strands beyond the principles of mutual support, cooperation and mutual or common benefit.

Unlike the CPB (RF) other organisations express reservations about uncritical wholesale adoption of Gonzalo Thought with the Columbian view, and others [e.g. Norwegian blog, MLM Thoughts and American group, Mass Proletariat [5]] there is opposition of the personality cult developed around the leadership theory of “Guiding Thought” associated with one of the small Gonzaloist trend[6] .

“ The Marxist Leninist Maoist theory about leaders is diametrically opposed to the cult of personality called “guiding thought”, “ways” and “synthesis” keyed in the RIM; this anti-Marxist conception of leaders in the same experience of the RIM checked to lead to revisionism, to the disaster of communist organisation and defeat, renunciation or delivery of the revolution. Of those anti-Marxist theories derives the pilgrim prophecy that the party of the proletariat can’t be built, it can’t successfully lead the revolution in one country, but has a great leader that gives shape and national content to Marxism Leninism Maoism.” UOC (MLM): 145

The inability to agree on the past has consequences

Columbian argues there were hesitations and the germ of a division within the Comintern about the policy of the United Fronts and Popular Fronts: on one side an interpretation that resulted in class conciliation when arguing that there was an anti-fascist bourgeoisie open to a reformist programme; in contrast was that in striving to secure the immediate objective – the defeat of fascism – this should be achieved without sacrificing the vital interests of the movement.

Could the 7th Congress be a stumbling block to new internationalism? Any overall assessment of the 7th Congress has a pedigree in the movement with differing interpretations provided from individuals and to the smallest groups.[7]

“Such line struggle was unveiled in the Seventh Congress not expressly condemned the tendency to give up the independence of class in the front; not clearly demarcated borders between Marxism and opportunism in this matter, tolerating eclecticism that ultimately favoured an opportunist line application of the International by many communist parties, and that degenerated frankly towards browderist conception, according to which the fight against fascisms suppressed the class struggle in each country – give up the fight against fascist bourgeoisie – and considers the fascist imperialism as progressive, hiding the reactionary nature and rapacious all imperialism – whether or not a fascist – diverting the labour movement towards social-democratic class conciliation and the renunciation of the anti-imperialist struggle. Two diametrically opposed interpretations of the Unite Front and Popular Front, where the Communists had formal unity in orientation, but real division in their understanding and practical application”   UOC (MLM): 131

Internationalism is in the DNA of the politics

The absence of an international structure since 1943 is seen as contributing to the progress of a revisionist wave that engulf the various national sectors. The Communist Party of Brazil (Red Faction) quoting Mao in support:

“In a post-World War II period, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the parties of some Eastern European countries set aside the fundamental principles of Marxism. They spread a cloak of silence about the class struggle, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the leadership of the Party, democratic centralism, the links of the Party with the masses, etc., and the atmosphere that was lived there was of little interest for these things. ”  [8]

 The Philippine party has long argued that there is no need for a “father-party” and that bi-lateral relations should be the standard relationship with internationalist relationship – In 1994 guidelines for such relationships stated:

“The CPP favors bilateral relations with foreign parties as the principal form of its international relations. Bilateral relations logically and necessarily follow from the principle and reality of the integrity and independence of the CPP as well as its equality with every foreign party with which it relates. The CPP can better handle its bilateral relations than multilateral ones in ideological and political terms and in the most concrete forms of cooperation. “ [9]

UOC (mlm), reject accepting the autonomy of parties against centralised direction, argues that organisationally the form should be a world party of the proletariat and not a World Federation of proletarian parties.

“The Communist party of each country must be a contingent of the International Communist movement, a section of the International and its struggle, part of the world struggle for communism that subordinates the interests of the struggle in each country to the interests of the World Proletarian Revolution.” UOC (MLM): 139

An added factor to the differences in assessment and evaluation of the historical legacy is evident in the documents and line struggle that has emerged over the contemporary response to the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement [RIM] that shapes the current positions in the call for overcoming the great dispersion of forces which has characterized the ICM over the recent decades.

Without collaboration in actual policies or coordination of a general outlook, where is the internationalism in collective decision-making? The UOC (mlm) is not alone in believing that the way forward is to push the ideological struggle, to rally the like-minded and draw lines of demarcation to create a smaller but coherent movement.

“Work to finalize the new Communist International, task that does necessary to clarify in the ideologically to unite politically and build the organisation. The union of Marxist Leninist Maoist in the Program for the World Proletarian Revolution, for Socialism and Communism, is not possible without the principled and intransigent struggle against opportunism, without close ties between the communist organisations in different countries, agreeing joint political campaigns internationally, materially contributing to the tasks, organising meetings or conferences where expands and debates issues of historical experience, the current political situation and the General Line, practicing the method of start from a base unit to fight for conquer a greater degree of unity.” UOC (MLM): 148

Mapping out the existing divisions

The C(m)PA, together with CPm Italy and the then CPI ML-Naxalbari, were signatories of the resolution called “Special Resolution” published on May 1st, 2012 that formalized the liquidation of RIM. [10]

RIM was conceived as an embryonic political centre however the type of International that would emerge was less certain. A proposal of the character of its replacement was put forward by the Columbian UOC (mlm) in 2016.

The main subjective cause of the emergence and dominance of revisionism within RIM were said to be

“the incorrect method of secret discussion of differences, tolerance with opportunist tendencies given the excessive cult of personality and thinking of leaders that long ago had taken flight in the movement; concessions to opportunism that handcuffed to the parties when revisionism openly rose in the ranks of the RIM, and they condemned to their Committees – gnaw it by cancer revisionist avakianism – to silent before revisionist betrayal vile of the revolution in Nepal, to the proletariat, to MLM and to the own statements of RIM, all of which led to its bankruptcy.” UOC (MLM):137

Furthermore, “made common cause with the false Maoism “new” PCN(M) whose lie and program required full compliance with the Peace Agreement of 2006.The betrayal they don’t see in the agreement but rather the politicking by Prachanda and Bhattarai inside the reactionary state. They have not broken with the revisionist line of “Prachanda Path” or are afraid to admit were wrong.”

The Communist Party of Brazil (Red Faction) analysis reflects similar concerns:

“RIM ceased to play a positive role when the revisionists of the “RCP” from United States – taking advantage of the problematic situation of the left due to the bend in the People’s War in Peru – turned to totally hegemonize it.” false leaders such as Prachanda and Bathharai or failed prophets like Avakian were exposed and demoralized as “new revisionism”, opposed to Maoism.”

The essential condition to go forward to a great regrouping of communists is the clear demarcation of areas with all kinds of opportunism, to elaborate ideological and political unity in a General Line, which provides a solid bases to pursue the innumerable discussions and inevitable struggle to transform the world.

“A General Line that collects the historical experience of the Proletarian Revolution, that defends the principles of Marxism Leninism Maoism examining its light the specific situation of the world contradictions of imperialism and that to provide clear guidance facing to the critical current problems of World Proletarian Revolution. UOC (MLM):139 [11]

Modern General Line for the 21st century to encompass the complex, highly diverse and rapidly changing world-wide processes of change has a scaffolding of a “general line” guiding the tactics and the strategy of the movement, in that the Columbian suggestions these include:

An underdeveloped implication in the general tasks of the communist is to “make greater efforts and sacrifices for concentrating the revolutionary force in the weak links of the global chain of imperialism” is revolutionary migration – perhaps as seen in support for the Kurdish forces fighting in Syria in the last decade?

 Nature of the Party

 Colombians are critical of the theory of militarized party popularise from the Peruvian experience. While clearly identifying the armed struggle of the masses as the highest form of political struggle, they argue:

“In adopting orthodox argument that “the theory of militarized party, affined to guevarism and “leftism”, very radical in appearance but is actually a theory that undermines the role of the Party and breaks the conscious discipline, feature not only of Party members, but also the actuation of the broad masses in the era of capitalism, for the first time in history they exercise its quality role as protagonists of the revolution.” UOC (MLM): 140

The conscious unity of Party members, rather than the hierarchal obedience necessary in a fighting unit, and emersion and contact with the revolutionary masses so that “the policy of the Communists is public, but the character of the organisation is always clandestine” is the approach of the UOC. A militarised party is thought to denigrate the development of the party ideologically, minimising line struggle through criticism and self-criticism, Marxist education, and too readily categorises line struggle as the plots of police and imperialism shutting down arguments allowing ideas to move freely within the ranks, it allows resolution by those who believe in eliminating opportunistic thoughts by physically liquidating their carriers attacking the ranks of the Party and its wider relationships.

In the new century the legacy of struggle and the positive methodology of the old parties were ill-appreciated when nuances of leftism prevailed that counterpoised this approach with the preparation of the people’s war which can subsume the political to the weapon, that despise the ideological and political work among the masses forging their class consciousness about the role of the armed people and revolutionary objectives of their armed struggle. In substituting in a small consciously committed group as the cutting edge it draws upon foci theory and the ‘propaganda of the deed’ both discredited in experience, and contemptuous of the mass line and organising the class to face its fight. The tasks of communist seen as traditionally in the struggle to obtain revolutionary leadership of the working class and its institutions through agitation and propaganda, to communicate to the masses a true picture of class relations and interests that exists in society, explain why the socialist transformation is necessary and unavoidable and their own crucial role to perform in this historical transformation.

The French Maoist Communist Party, argued[12]:

“On People’s War some members of parties and organisations do recognize the universality of Maoism but deny the universal nature of people’s war because it has not been defined by Mao.”

They stick to the thesis that:   People’s wars can take only place in countries where the oppressed peasantry is important, where vast areas are not accessible because the means of communication are few and insufficiently developed etc. – In the imperialist countries such conditions do not exist.

Combatants of People’s War recognise contentious concerns that question what seldom appears in partisan propaganda and sometimes erupt in polemical fury. But here, in a statement not dated by time, is a quietly spoken observation from a leading combatant:

“Our capacity has been reduced to the military needs of the war.” In response to the intense state repression, they have increased their attention to the military attacks and counter-attacks at the expense of the political education of their soldiers, the ethical foundation of their cadres and the politicisation of their supporters.

The militarised party as a party building strategy has some serious flaws, not least what happens when the general command is “decapitated” by the enemy, how can that vanguard leadership be maintained in the ranks if exercised in a command structure less democratic-centralism and more directed, how can momentum be maintained in the struggle if mass involvement is not regarded as militarily important?

IMG_004Veteran chairman-founder of the Communist Party of the Philippines Jose Maria Sison’s comments on the question of people’s war in industrial countries were critical of a tendency without naming names:

“There is no protracted people’s war of any kind going on in any industrial capitalist country. What has been protracted is merely idle talk or hot air about the possibility of waging protracted people’s war.  No serious preparations for it are being made.

It is only a “Left” opportunist, a fake Maoist or even an agent provocateur who has disdain for the lasting admonition of the Communist Manifesto to win the battle for democracy against the bourgeois class dictatorship and who clamors for proclaiming and starting a people’s war in an industrial capitalist country without the necessary preparations of the subjective forces and the favorable objective conditions that I have mentioned.” [13]

And Sison’s article was immediately counter with the call to Defend and apply the universality of Protracted People’s War! attributed to Ard Kinera, contributor to TFM website.
Earlier in this year arguments on the internet that focused less on Gonzalo/Guzman and more on those who raise the banner of Gonzalo Thought and how they interpret and what applies in their struggles. It started with an article commenting on the demise of a small American activist group and encompassed the position that nobody should charge Chairman Gonzalo with the simplifications of many of his supporters in Peru and abroad. [14]


So what it initiated was polemical exchanges on the understanding of the contribution of Chairman Gonzalo and the interpretation and application by some of those activists who identified and support that contribution regarding them as an ultra-left deviation. This was followed by counter thesis from the US Red Guard associate, Struggle Sessions, A Crackle of Hens in response to the attacks on “our German Comrades”. This was reinforced in late January by Tjen Folket Media’s contribution, “Answer to Blog Post Against Gonzaloby Øystein Iversen. [See texts in Political Puritanism collection]

Anything less than fulsome references to Chairman Gonzalo is objectionable on the grounds that as he the one who more than any other has summarize Maoism and more than that:

“Gonzalo, furthermore, did not simply “summarize” Maoism; he synthesized it aIMG_006nd in doing so brought the whole of the ICM out of increasing darkness. Through the application of this synthesis he developed greater analysis which pushed MLM even further.”

(Kavga’s A Crackle of Hens )

As like-minded ally Øystein Iversen, one of Tjen Folket Media’s contributors, argued:

“Studying and following the PCP and Chairman Gonzalo’s example is necessary and important for communists in all countries that wish to reconstruct communist parties today, because these must be constituted as Maoist parties.”

Any other position mildly critical puts one in the camp of the international right-opportunists as with the Norwegian blogger opinion:

“I have no desire to keep people away from studying Gonzalo. On the contrary – Gonzalo has written a lot of sense and should be studied. But not uncritical. Not everything he writes is good (see, for example, my article on “Great Leader or Collective leadership?”).”

For these comrades, although they recognize the universality of Maoism, they ignore one part of it and counterpoises the Leninist theory of insurrection without allowing for the enrichment provided by Maoism. They truncate Marxism and an essential element of the military theory supplemented by Mao.

Among the parties (including the PCMF), some organisations recognize the universality of the people’s war, others oppose it. The dissolution of some pre-party building groups like the Red Guard Austin (followed by fellow co-thinkers) raised speculation that this was done to give actuality to what was proposed as protracted people’s war as a strategy in the imperialist countries.

It is the relatively recent issue of what lessons to draw from the Peruvian revolutionary struggle that is shaping the contemporary politics and alignments within the international communist movement.

Clearly on this issue and others there is no unity. The struggle of two lines on these issues, goes through the debate in the ICM and the RIM and therefore through the whole movement including MAOIST ROAD beyond. It is part of the ideological struggle to revive and prepare for the gathering of Maoists all over the world; what is anticipated will be a leap forward in the development of the Internationalist Communist Movement and encouragement in the formation of Maoist communist parties in each country.

However convergence is unlikely to unify the different organisations as the various joint statements and declarations expressed different criteria for the construction of the ICM from the outset. The history of these declarations constitutes part of the struggle for the reunification of the communists in the world, increasingly separating on distinct political lines. There are mutual accusations of “revisionism” due to discrepancies in the content and the alleged monopoly on the only “true” and “scientific” understanding of maoism results in the quick transformation of differences into matters of principle as initiatives developed in separate ways, expressing distinct political lines in active opposition to others. Certainly the hostility directed at the exiled leader of the Philippine Party from either side of the debate does not bode well for a majority international alignment to emerge.

The Columbian s list support for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the fight against oppression of women, and “work on the preparation and development of People’s War taking the specific conditions of each country” [UOC (MLM): 149] among others as tasks expected of the Partyas part of the new International and directed by it.UOC (MLM): 150

Columbian view advances a scaffolding of attributes and policies to build the new internationalism, specifying:

Specific tasks for communists in the imperialist countries are

    • building the party, noting “immigrant workers…constitute the most important sector of the social base of the party in the imperialist countries”
    • Uncompromising struggle against opportunism and the labour aristocracy
    • striving for leadership of working class economic resistance, “especially and primarily the struggle of the union movement”
    • supporting anti-imperialist revolutionary struggles, even if not yet directed by MLM.
    • Whereas in the oppressed countries the broad approach is
    • new Democracy Revolution in semi-feudal oppressed countries
    • building the worker-peasant alliance
    • -work for class independence of the union movement and combat opportunism
    • practice solidarity with the struggle for socialist revolution in the imperialist countries

Another pole of attraction expressed by the Communist Party of Brazil (Red Faction) argued its fundamentalist position:IMG_007

“So the problem in the ICM is not principally rooted in that Maoism is not formally acknowledged, but how some understand it, and this is why it is important to start with who defined Maoism as the new, third and superior stage of our ideology; because it is only by starting from what was scientifically established by Chairman Gonzalo that we can understand Maoism as one unit, as one harmonic system. If one does not take the work of Chairman Gonzalo as a starting point, one falls into eclecticism, counterpoising quotes but not understanding the ideas.”

In mid-2018, the Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan published a critique to the Joint Declaration of May 1st signed by 8 Maoist parties and organizations, entitled “A Glimpse at the Joint International Statement of the Eight Latin American Maoist Parties and Organizations.

The Afghanistan organisation explicitly argued that Gonzalo thought “is continuing to play a negative historical role and was even behind the composition of a joint international statement in celebration of international workers day to promote sectarianism…”. Whilst others have generalised criticism of concepts associated with the Peruvian struggle in particular, the Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan statement emphasised that alongside MLM struggles against Avakian’s New Synthesis and Prachanda Path style revisionism–– “a struggle should also be waged against the deviation that has emerged as Gonzalo Thought.”

The Communist Party of Brazil (Red Faction) counters that:

“The Campaign for Maoism cannot make a great leap only with declarations, studies and debate if it does not advance in more People’s Wars in the world, in addition to further development of those that are taking place. On the other hand, no party can advance the central and principal task of reconstituting or constituting a CP to initiate the People’s War, without understanding and assuming the contributions of universal validity of Gonzalo thought, as an inseparable and indispensable part for the application of Maoism as ideological-political embodiment.” [15]

Furthermore, in order to attack Maoism, revisionism in its most varied expressions points increasingly and centrally against Gonzalo thought, in order to prevent a correct assimilation of Maoism, to empty and reduce its content, and to sterilize it. So the campaign in defence of Chairman Gonzalo and the campaign for Maoism are two strategic and inseparable campaigns, as the Maoist Communist Party (France) recently affirmed, defending Chairman Gonzalo is defending Maoism.

The most obvious demarcation line within the self-identifying Maoist movement is the analysis and evaluation of the Peruvian experience led by Abimael Guzmán, universally known throughout his party career as chairman Gonzalo. These differences impact on the conclusions drawn and lessons learnt, and are reflected in the strategic way forward.

 Within the two-line struggle the demarcations are being clearly signalled, with opposition to the position of adoption of Chairman Gonzalo’s Maoism is to oppose in fact the whole application of Maoism and People’s War and to the unification of the International Communist Movement based on these principles. This is to follow the path of what the Brazilians harshly characterise as the rightist liquidationist tendency, describing it as a more recalcitrant and pernicious form of the new revisionism.

“This opportunist and revisionist tendency is a counter current in the International Communist Movement opposed to Maoism, the unity of the ICM and the People’s War. It represents the shift to liquidationism for some of those who remained for years hidden in centrism, sunk in their ideological, political incapacity and absolute lack of initiative.“

Exclusion from the new internationalism will be an ideological choice of whether the so-called “fourth sword” is grasped and welded against any other analysis based on the concrete realty of the national arena that struggle is undertaken. In advancing its Gonzalo banner it drops the cornerstone of Mao’s success in revolutionary struggle in China, the relevance of the politics to the condition of the day.

Documents | MLM Line Struggle on new internationalism

The Debate in the international communist movement Maoist Road#1 June2011

UOC (MLM) (2016) Proposal for developing a General Line for Unity of the International Communist Movement.

Communist Party of Brazil (Red Faction) (2018) Combat Liquidationism and unite the International Communist Movement under Maoism

Ragnar V. Røed (2019) A pull towards the right Tjen Folket Media

Sison (2019) “On the Question of People’s War in Industrial Capitalist Countries”

+ Response by Ard Kinera (2019)“Defend and apply the universality of Protracted People’s War!”

Political Puritanism Collection

maosite1917 | Red Guards Austin – the end

MLM Thoughts | Gonzalo and ultra-left deviation

Kavga| A Crackle of Hens (Struggle Sessions)

Øystein Iversen | “Answer to Blog Post Against Gonzalo”

MLM Thoughts |Reply to Øystein Iversen

MLM Thoughts |Great Leader or Collective leadership?

MLM Thoughts |Reply to Rangnar V. Røed

Related posts

Albania: On the character of our epoch

America’s Maoist Mushrooms

Chinese defence of Stalin – what’s that about?

Global Maoism

Guilty to the charge of promoting revolution

MLM Line Struggle USA

Old disputes and a new internationalism

On Reading JMP

Protracted people’s war as a strategy for the imperialist countries

Reaching Out: Global Maoism

The Gonzaloists are gathering

Tirana builds an Internationale (4 instalments)

To keep our red flag flying in Peru (4 instalments)



[1] Gonzaloists are gathering Text Here

[2] For the variety of approaches and trends within the broad self-defined Maoist movement explore the online collection at

[3] See posting Protracted people’s war as a strategy for the imperialist countries

[4] Proposal for developing a General Line for Unity of the International Communist Movement. Negation of the Negation , Organo teorico de la Union Obera Comunista (MLM) No.5 August 2016 [English language edition] 2016 Communist Worker Union (mlm) Columbia General Line There is competing maoist grouping associated with the RCP, USA, the Revolutionary Communist Group of Colombia.

[5] see

[6] Promoted by the Organization of the Workers of Afghanistan (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, principally Maoist), Communist Party Marxist Leninist Maoist – Bangladesh, Communist Party Marxist Leninist Maoist – France and supported by the Marxist Leninist Maoist Centre of Belgium. See

[7] Examples from the British movement include Bland, The Cominform Fights Revisionism , and Stalin and the Comintern, paper delivered by N. Steinmayr to The Stalin Society, London, September 2000. Other views are available.

[8] Mao Tsetung (1977) Selected Works, Volume V. Beijing: Foreign Language Press, p. 412

[9] Guidelines on International Relations of the Communist Party of the Philippines GuidelinesOnIntlRelations-CPP-1994

[10] For a criticism from Communist Party of India (M-L) Naxalbari On the Present Situation of the RIM and the Challenge of Regrouping Maoist Parties at the International Level see  2011 Maoist Road 1

[11] Draws upon the example of A Proposal Concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement . Text Here ~

The Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in Reply to the Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of March 30, 1963

Documents gathered in THE POLEMIC ON THE GENERAL LINE Text Here ~

[12] Argued in their contribution to Maoist Road that “The Communists’ Unity on a World Wide Scale Is Achieved Through Ideological Struggle” Maoist Road #1

[13] Sison (2019) “On the Question of People’s War in Industrial Capitalist Countries” + Response by Ard Kinera (2019)“Defend and apply the universality of Protracted People’s War!” 2019 On the Question of People’s war in Industrial Capitalist Countries

[14] Political Puritanism Collection 2019 political-puritanism

[15] CPB (RF) 2019 2018 Combat Liquidationism and unite the International Communist Movement under Maoism and the People’s War




Old disputes and a new internationalism



The struggle against the new course initiated by the Soviet Union led to ideological division and political splits from the late 1950s in the international communist movement that remained until the end of the Soviet Union in 1991. Whilst the CPSU saw its leadership increasing diminished by dissident and autonomous behaviour among those institutionally aligned to Moscow, from these disputes arose an anti-revisionist trend associated with the ruling parties of Albania and China that did not materialise on an organisational basis with a “Beijing Centre” to rebuild and lead component sections .

Components of this pro-China trend as the anti-revisionists were more commonly labelled, were never as formalized and homogeneous as the pro-Soviet tendency. At an early stage, the Albanian Party of Labour sided with the CPC. Only one Western classic communist party came out as anti-revisionist, the Communist Party of New Zealand. Many of the mainstream (non-splinter group) communist parties in South-East Asia, like the Burmese Communist Party and Communist Party of Thailand. The pro-CPC movements were, after the initial split from the Moscow-line Communist Parties, in many cases, based amongst the wave of student radicalism that engulfed the world in the 1960s and 1970s. The anti-revisionist struggle was inspiration for newly re-established parties like in the Philippines and elsewhere.

Whereas the various streams of Trotskyism had unsuccessfully attempted to construct their version of the 4th International from the 1940s to the present day, it was not until the pivotal year 1977 that Albania’s ruling communist party serious attempt was made to rally an alternative international movement. It was in the following decade that there were three substantive attempts to co-ordinate the international alignment of a fractious and diverse maoist constellation of organisations, one of which was self-consciously described itself as “the embryonic centre of the world’s Maoists” until its demise towards the end of the first decade of the new century.

A new communist movement had arisen in the 1960s in opposition to Soviet endorsed revisionism. In its formative years during the polemical exchanges on the general line of the international communist movement, regardless of Albania’s vocal and strident challenges against modern revisionism, the ideological leadership belonged to the Communist Party of China led by Mao Zedong. In the struggle against Khrushchev and his successors, the CPC were sensitive to the problem of the equality of parties. The Chinese leadership had suffered in the progress of the Chinese Revolutions the negative experiences of advice and pressure from the Soviet Party and Comintern, an intervention repeated by Wang Ming’s contributions during the 1960s.

This well-known history is offered as an argument against efforts to institutionalise the emerging anti-revisionists organisationally as well as ideological and politically. Despite fraternal aid and assistance, expression of solidarity and internationalism provided to friendly parties and funding via Albania, the mantra of self-reliance was over-riding. When the Albanian party was manoeuvring at its Fifth Congress in 1965 to consolidate the supporting Marxist-Leninists organisations into a more institutional arrangement, the CPC did not support the move regardless of the pending mass upheaval unleashed in the Cultural Revolution.

From the 9th Congress in 1969, the Communist party of China ceased its practice of inviting fraternal delegates from other parties to its congresses. Unlike the Albanian party who cultivated such visits. The practice of sending delegates to other fraternal parties’ gatherings was also discontinued. It could be argued that despite China supporting some revolutionary forces financially and through training in other countries in the 1960s and the early 1970s, the global impact was not ideological but largely through lower-key, cultural dissemination. As the intensity of the Cultural Revolution waned in China bi-lateral visits were resumed however in the 1970s these included an eclectic range of invitees and clearly no moves were from Beijing to revive a (Maoist-orientated) communist international.

There were a number of considerations that questioned the need for such an arrangement:

  • Such a centre would never be able to understand the concrete realities of revolution in each country
  • It would hinder the development of competent, self-reliant leadership in the different parties
  • On a practical level there was no capacity for the international coordination of the revolutionary movement, certainly neither Albania or China had the financial or personnel resources to sustain such an international
  • The unspoken objection was the experience of the Comintern itself whereby its policies became identified with the needs of the Soviet Union.

Obviously during the 1960s and 70s a great many organisations uncritically adopted the positions of both the Albanian and Chinese policies, not a bad thing if agitating around the issue of natural justice for Albania over its confiscated gold reserves held in Western nations, however the negative side could be (and was) the lack of independent examination of the vital questions of revolution, especially since there was an objective difference – and all too obvious – in the role of China as a developing socialist state and the tasks of pushing the revolution forward in specific countries. In terms of foreign policy this was starkly seen when the “three World theory” was taken up and championed by supportive-China organisation while others, in the light of Albanian opposition that further divided criticism of China’s foreign policy by the error of denouncing Mao Zedong Thought to follow the Albanian baton.

Late 1970s

Following Mao’s death in September 1976 , the arrest of leftist in the leadership was seen as a reactionary coup and betrayal of Mao Zedong Thought by some. The RCP, USA emerged as the leading element of these unreconstructed Maoist trend, although strong represented, if not widely known, in Latin America.

The following year proved decisive for the original anti-revisionist movement as there were further splits over China’s foreign policy, the international Maoist movement was divided into three camps. One group, composed of various ideologically nonaligned groups, gave weak support to the new Chinese leadership under Deng Xiaoping. Another camp denounced the new leadership as traitors to the cause of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought. The third camp sided with the Albanians in denouncing the Three Worlds Theory of the CPC.

The Albanian intervention saw a consolidation of some forces around the Party of Labour of Albania with a series of regional rallies and joint statements supported by the PLA and delegations of the ML organisations participated in conferences in Albania as Radio Tirana informed the world about the strengthening threads of this new international constellation. (See Albania Builds An International)

Maoism, without Mao or China

The decade of the 1980s saw confusion, disorientation and collapse of seemingly strong parties in North America and Europe and the maoist stronghold of south East Asia. Many of the foreign parties that were fraternal parties aligned with the Chinese government before 1975 either disbanded, abandoned the new Chinese government entirely, or even renounced Marxism-Leninism and developed into non-communist, social democratic parties. There was also the most successful development to date of maoist origin, the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement  [RIM]. It demonstrates that what is contemporary seen as the “international Maoist movement” evolved out of the organisations that opposed Deng and claimed to uphold the legacy of Mao Zedong.

In the autumn of 1980, a communique signed by 13 non-ruling maoist organisation was addressed “To the Marxist-Leninists, The workers and The Oppressed of All Countries” quickly followed by a position paper prepared jointly by the leaders of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Chile and the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA led by Bob Avakian. This laid out the basic principles for the unity of Marxist-Leninists and the line of the International communist movement.

It was in March 1984 that a second congress of seventeen organisations from fourteen different countries adopted the founding declaration of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement [RIM] which adhered to Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought.

RIM presented itself as “the embryonic centre of the world’s maoist” although absent from its ranks were major parties engaged in armed revolution (like in the Philippines and India). It regrouped a core of parties who were initially characterised as pro-Gang of Four and against the revisionist betrayal in China, maintaining a Late Maoism focus on the value of the Cultural Revolution. Indeed, in December 1993, under Peruvian influence, RIM formally adopted Marxism-Leninism- Maoism and “advanced further still in the direction of a communist international of a new type” [AWTW #23 1998 p74]

How far they were sharply demarcated from other tendencies which had developed out of the previous maoist movement? On the Struggle to Unite the Genuine Communist Forces looked at the principles and forces that RIM was looking towards in its unity drive [AWTW #30 (2004)].

January 1985 saw, “on the same side of the barricade” but not an official publication of RIM (in all but name), the relaunch of “A World to Win”. Two previous editions had appeared, the first contained an article by Sri Lankan veteran Leader, Sanmugathasan, entitled “Enver Hoxha Refuted”.

RIM included such notable organizations as the Communist Party of Peru (PCP), also known as “Sendero Luminoso” or “Shining Path,” the Communist Party of Nepal Maoist, later known as the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (UCPN(M)), the Union of Iranian Communist (Sarbedaran), but not the Communist Party of the Philippines (nor the Communist Party of India (Maoist) founded in Sep 2004) .

Towards a renewed solidarity and many conference of Marxist-Leninist Organisations

The 1990s was a busy decade that saw a repolarization of the international communist movement with rekindled interest in the need to regroup and coordinated communist parties in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact alliance. There has been a number of projects aimed at providing some kind of vehicle for unity of different organisation which self-declare their Marxist-Leninist commitment.

* Different streams, different venues, different organisations, different multilateral attempts to coalesce forces around a common position. A partial listing

Brussels annual May Day seminars

Pyongyang Declaration April 1992

Stuttgart Conference of 9 Marxist-Leninist parties from Europe September 1992

Mao Centenary Essen 1993 – General Declaration on Mao Zedong Thought

International Emergency Committee to Defend the Life of Dr Abimael Guzmán (IEC) September 1993

European multilateral meeting of ML parties November 1993

Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism! The Revolutionary Internationalist Movement declares that Marxism-Leninism-Maoism must be the commander and guide of the world revolution. December 1993

Moscow Stalin today seminars   1994

Quito ICMLPO founding    August1994

PTB Unity Proposals May 1995

Unity & Struggle No.1 July 1995

Sochi Statement at Anti-Imperialist Convention India, Socialist Unity Centre of India May 1995

Ischia Conference (journal “International Struggle / Marxist-Leninist”) March 1995

Leningrad Declaration November 1997

2nd Conference “International Struggle / Marxist-Leninist” London 1997

International seminar on Mao and People’s war December 1998

Nine party declaration on formation of Co-ordination Committee of Maoist Parties and Organisations of South Asia (CCOMPOSA) June 2001


From 1993 the annual May Day Communist Seminars organized in Brussels by the Party of Labour of Belgium proved successful in attracting a wide audience from many different political heritages as the PTB increasingly diverged from their origins as part of the Maoist anti-revisionist Marxist Leninist movement. (Although there are exceptions as reportedly the RCP, USA were disinvited from the 1997 seminar and while Bill Bland was invited to Brussels in 1995 he was denied speaking rights.) Such projects set aside the clear lines of distinction drawn in the historic line struggles waged by the CPC and PLA against revisionism. The argument is that revisionism in power collapsed, so “old disputes” should no longer be an obstacle to co-ordinating forces of organisations on the same side of the barricade:

“Whatever one’s opinion about the correctness or necessity of these splits at a certain point in history, it is nowadays possible to overcome these divisions and to unite the Marxist-Leninist parties which are divided into different currents.”

[Proposal from Parti Du Travail of Belgium and the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (AUCPB)]   See also:

1995 | Ludo Martens | On certain aspects of the struggle against revisionism – For the unity of all communists, in defence of proletarian internationalism

The ideological diversity attracted representatives of ruling parties from North Korea and Cuba to the Brussel meetings and while some parties became more vocal in support for the positions of Cuba and North Korea, neither ruling parties could construct a substantial international group recognising an authorative ideological leadership, while Vietnam was seldom mentioned.

Even the small pro-Albanian forces were regrouping after the demise of their state sponsor but failed to unite in a single international alignment. One can set aside the individual call of Wolfgang Eggers , in December 2000 for the foundation of the new Communist International (Marxist-Leninist) in the name of the KPD (ML) and accompanying “19 Theses” dismissed by Canada-based Hari Kumar because “Your approach lacks either common-sense or persuasive power or psychological insight, or, frankly, anything that can commend it”. The path towards a new communist Marxist-Leninist International by essentially old style Stalinist and Hoxha supporters was explored by Kumar (Alliance (ML) Issue No.19 1996)

The journals “International Struggle / Marxist-Leninist” and “Unity & Struggle” aimed to provide a common political platform for a new ML international that proved to have its strength in Latin America but still a divided tendency. There were 15 parties at the conference of Marxist-Leninist parties held in Quito in 1994, but only 12 approved the decision to continue the conferences and publication of an international review (Unity & Struggle). Two years earlier, one of the largest components of the Hoxhist trend, the CPdo B – Communist party of Brazil – had decided to abandon the idea of reorganising the pro-Albanian forces in order to maximise its relations with the broader defined Communist forces including the Communist Party of China. The International seminar on problems of Revolution in Latin America initiated by the Quito conference has drawn from Maoist and Guevarist tendencies to discuss revolutionary strategies.

Elsewhere on the political margins effort at regrouping the international communist movement was the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations (ICMLPO) in 1988, the first of a series of conferences attracting around two dozen organisation, as the Marxist Leninist Party of Germany (MLPD) sought unity .It published the “International Newsletter”.. However, some of the parties and organizations within the ICMLPO identify as Mao Zedong Thought or Maoist.

This grouping metamorphosed into ICOR in October 2010 on an anti-imperialist, anti-revisionist and anti-Trotskyite platform as a union for practical cooperation and a form of organization of international cooperation and coordination for the activity of the revolutionaries of the world, and for mutual support in class struggle and party-building. It has about 51 Member in total.

The founder-leader of the Communist Party of the Philippines was involved in a non-party international broad front, the ILPS – International League of People’s Struggles, a broad international anti-imperialist and democratic mass formation emulated by the smaller World People’s Resistance Movement that seems to lasted as long as RIM did.

In December 1998 an international seminar on Mao and People’s War on the initiative of the CPI(ML) , Communist Party of the Philippines and, the Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist , People’s War group saw 27 organizations represented in support of the practice of people’s war and the politics of new democracy. An invitation was extended to the Communist Party of Peru who did not attend. A short-lived website and international bulletin, Vanguard was established but no further international gatherings were sustained. The intention was to publicise the articles and news reports of Marxists-Leninist-Maoist parties, an ambition that found its expression in the present day Redspark website.

The Maoist-Third Worldist movement, a much smaller current of thought began to appear from 2007, but soon splintered and (as with the line of “new synthesis”) took on a messianic claim having supersede its Maoist origins.

These moves in the ML milieu were not in isolation as other leftist currents as seen in the Anti-Imperialist camp, a coalition of activists from different perspectives, initiated 2001, and in the period of retreat, steps taken towards the cooperation and coordination of the Moscow orientated Communist and Workers’ Parties saw the Greek party , KKE play a central role in organising international gatherings and the publication of “International Communist Review” started in 2014.

Beyond RIM

The latter half of the 21st century’s new decade saw RIM near defunct as many of the one-time RIM organizations have become increasingly critical of each other. The intensified tensions within RIM were not unrelated to the setback of the capture of the Peruvian revolutionary leader Guzman.

Disagreements has resulted in many public splits with the RCP USA condemning the UCPN(M) as revisionist after the Nepalese party abandoned its people’s war for parliamentary participation. Only in turn for the RCP USA to be criticized by many of RIM’s surviving members for attempt to foist a “new synthesis” and the undisputed leadership of Bob Avakian upon the international communist movement. Due to growing internal problems and differences RIM ceased functioning around 2007, though there was apparently never any public announcement that the organization was disbanding.

Starting around 2012 there have been efforts by some parties and organizations around the world, to try to resurrect a new internationalism, of re-establishing a RIM mark 2, or else some new international Maoist organization. This took the form of projects and networks advertised on the internet like the Maoist Road blog . The emergence of a Gonzaloist trend in the second decade of the century saw a minor constellation coalesce on the basis of a prescriptive exclusivity that had a sense of theatre without sustained impact.

Aftermath: “old Disputes” & internationalism

Different Leftist currents exist for a reason, and that heritage has a legacy in that each current offers contending analysis and perspectives. So when one speaks about Khrushchev’s revisionism and the restoration of capitalism under Gorbachev and avoids the Brezhnev period when analysis inspired by Mao suggests that the Soviet Union had been thoroughly converted into a “Social Imperialist” entity. Disputes about the class nature of the Soviet Union is passed over and differences retained in the interests of pragmatic unity. Taking an agnostic stance on the merits of previously secured historical clarity is not attributed to other Leftists currents that would argue for an earlier date for the degeneration of the revolutionary project; outside the big tent are Trotskyists, left communists and anarchist currents. The Proposals were that such divisions can be overcome because they were now mere historical disputes as if those past judgements made were immaterial and without consequences or legacy : so what Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, Three World Theory, The Cultural Revolution, military role in Poland, Hoxha’s denunciation of former ally, Mao.

The drive for internationalist solidarity that means the unity of views and actions may be for some a form of revolutionary nostalgia, sentimentally privileging the past at the expense of present concerns and the emotional reconstitution and preservation of revered histories. Against them is a past limiting progressive potential of a greater left unity, the idea of many forces on “our side” of the barricades facing a greater enemy. However these “old disputes” involved political positions that were and are important: if they were wrong, mistaken or right affects subsequent decisions and notions of solidarity that the new internationalism represents. Drawing a line under the past may seem an attractive proposition in the face of a “common enemy”; not so attractive if they are strategically regarded as accomplices of that enemy. It is a different matter of co-operating and co-ordinating with co-thinkers than that of tactically working in alliance with a diverse (and often temporary) coalition of forces. Reserving judgement can disguise the suppression of genuine revolutionary positions. It may well be that the drive for a new internationalism is based on the realistic foundation that the possibility of hegemonic leadership by one trend on the political left is no longer possible, and that the Pandora box of the broad movement, contrasting perceived sectarianism and ultra-leftism against the tolerance and pluralism of divergent views, is the authentic way forward. If that is the case such unity, without reference to Mao, means uniting without Maoism as it is understood by its most vocal proponents.

maoism will win

on Rolf Martens 1942-2008

Malmö Maoist activist, Rolf Martens died on the 22nd of April 2008. He is buried at Limhamn’s cemetery.

His Wikipedia page notes he was Swedish chess champion in 1967 “and later, after I had learned some Marxism, made some “shocking” discoveries in its opening theory”. In fact there is a considerable literature on the Internet concerning his chess career and his contributions to chess theory.see

The entry notes – without elaborating that “he devoted himself to political activity, during which during the last 30 years of his life he stubbornly proclaimed an odd variant of Maoism”.

A former volunteer on the Marxists Internet Archive [M.I.A.], Martens was best known for his prolific publishing endeavours and internet engagement which was ironically described as “his personal big character poster board”.

Born in Norway in 1942, Martens moved in 1950 settling in Malmo the third-largest city in Sweden. He had a university degree with mathematics and physics, however was employed worked as a welder for 24 years. Rolf Martens worked as a welder at Åkermans workshop in Eslöv.  He was an active trade unionist and over the years involved in various campaigns including the Swedish anti-EU-membership campaign; anti- racism demonstrations and counter-demonstrations; support group for DR Congo; and was pro-nuclear power [At Barsebäck in southern Sweden, less than 20km from Copenhagen,two reactors came on-line in the mid-70’s. The plant was the focus of domestic protest during the 1976 “nuclear elections” and the site of large demonstrations at the time of the 1980 Swedish nuclear referendum]. Martens was pro-nuclear energy hence the cyber reference to ‘nuclear viking’.

Marten’s political engagement had begun in 1972, first in the anti-Vietnam-war movement, and as Swedish Maoists played a key role in organizing anti-Vietnam War protests Martens embraced the vibrant Swedish Maoist movement. In 1972 he joined Kommunistiska Förbundet Marxist-Leninisterna (revolutionärerna), abbreviated KFML(r) – The Communist League Marxist-Leninists (the revolutionaries). It was founded in 1970 by a splinter group from the pro-Chinese KFML. He was excluded from it after only two years. In 1974, Matens published “Dokument om kampen mot de pseudo-marxister, som vill undertrycka marxismen-leninismen och arbetar den sovjetiska socialimperialismen i händerna” [Document about the fight against the pseudo-marxists who want to suppress Marxism-Leninism and work hand-in-hand with Soviet social imperialism].

He recalls, “I was inexperienced in 1974, and in the then struggle made many mistakes, both of the “Left” sectarian type and of the Right opportunist one, and, not least, at first had difficulties in seeing how I, as only one individual, could successfully combat the then “KFML(r)” which, after all, in the 1973 parliamentary elections in Sweden (voters: 5 million), had received some 16 000 votes. But I didn’t land with the Right opportunists either (e.g. a “fraternal party” to the CPC called the “SKP” which later went with Deng and then disappeared in the early ’80s)”.

In 1974 Martens came under the influence of Hartmut Dicke (Klaus Sender) of the KPD/ML (NEUE EINHEIT), in self-exile in Malmö, Sweden, at the time due to persecution in West Germany.

A memoir on his webpage stated that he “endeavoured, and still am endeavouring, to act as an individual representative of Marxism in Sweden, of course always striving to contribute towards the creation of a genuinely Marxist-Leninist party in this country. In May 1975, I started publishing a series of leaflets (mainly) in Swedish, the INFORMATIONSBLAD series… from late 1974 on, I’ve participated in various organizations and coalitions of a united-front type, for causes which I’ve held it important to support.”

There were Martens’ disputes within the Sweden-China Friendship Committee. He was expelled from the Malmö chapter of the Swedish Palestine solidarity committee in 1983 which saw an explanatory text published, “A position on the Palestina Group congress in 1983”. Martens was critical of the role played by Rob Weltman – then the most influential leading member of the PGS, an organization in Sweden – “pointing out, and publicly proving, that Rob Weltman was working for forces wishing to subvert the PGS. For this I was kicked out”.

And in April 1990 Martens broke with the “bourgeois” KPD/ML (NEUE EINHEIT) it seems around the issue of their perceived lack of opposition to what the hostile KPD/ML described as “the Green and Alternative swindlers and so-called Ecologist movement”

The KPD/ML (NEUE EINHEIT), complained that Martens, a former member, kept publishing on the internet libels about the organization, at the same time trying to give the impression that he still has some connection with them, and was publishing articles and unauthorized translations of publications from Neue Eineit without permission.

“He only represents himself.” – NEUE EINHEIT Extra Nr.27 from Aug 15th 1996

Martens was a Steering Committee member involved with the Danish & Swedish chapters of the support group known as the International Emergency Committee to Defend the Life of Abimael Guzman. Publications that arose from disputes involving Martens included:

1) ” Leve 1 Maj” [Albertslund (Denmark),01 May 1996; 7 pages]; 2) “Forsvar Formand Gonzalos Liv!” [ Albertslund, 1996, 1 page]; 3) “Declaration Concerning Certain Suspicions” [2 copies: Malmö, 27 April 1995, 1 page, 2 sides (“to the editors of El Diario Internacional,are the anonymous leaders of the RIM agents of the CIA or not?”)]; 4) “To the Coordinating Committee.[Malmö, 12 April 19 94; 1 page, 2 sides]; 5) ” International Call to Action 20-21 May 1994″ [1 page, 2 sides]; 6) “Al Comité Coordinador” [Spanish edition of nr. 4; 1 2 April 1994]; 7) “A Proposal to Convene a Plenary Meeting of the Steering Committee of the IEC”[Malmö, 02 February 1995, 1 page, 2 sides]; 8) “Fö rklarung” [Malmö, July 1995; 1 page, 2 sides]; “Videovisning: You Must Tell the World” [Malmö, 1994, 1 page]

From late 1995 on, Martens was posting to Internet newsgroups and mailing lists, in English, Swedish and some other languages, among other things publishing “UNITE! (etc) Info” series.

FOERENA ER! Info en/de/fr/es/se series

Advocates the political line of Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong. Each
item # will be posted in one or more language(s).

Still to be found on mail archive sites are Rolf Marten’s multi-part instalments contributions dating from the mid-1990s onwards.….

Martens’ disputes were not simply restricted to the internet although Louis Proyect recall that he had to unsub Rolf at least 2 times from Marxmail, and former Chairman of the RCLB, Chris Burford waited in vain for Martens to apologise for Martens labelling him a cop in an acrimonious exchange on Marxism-General list in 1997. Burford, eventually  a member of Democratic Left, called for Martens withdraw from the list, explaining:

  • He stirs up unprincipled disputes. He appears to be unable to cooperate with a group sharing his political aims in Sweden, and there have been references to his falling out with a number of groups. Here on the internet despite regarding the Communist Party of Peru as having significant petty bourgeois tendencies he fanned a flame war against one supporter of that party in support of another group, one of whose members he now describes as a “swindler” and another as “lying”.
  • Despite apparently attempting to set up a new international on the internet according to the principles of Mao Zedong (who did not believe in an international) he appears singularly ignorant of Mao’s advice about not making personal attacks but enjoys name calling and appears to try to promote it. This might just be a childish pleasure in puns, but the role of police agents in causing divisions is well established, including their tendency to call others agents to distract attention from themselves and add to the confusion and distrust.
  • From: Chris Burford <>
  • Subject: M-G: Just a general without soldiers?
  • 29 Jul 1997 06:47:09 +0100

Actually in the real world neither of them were undercover cops!

These exchanges were not unusual in the febrile atmosphere that passed for political dialogue at that time. Martens recalled “… some sharp exchanges recently on the Jefferson Village Virginia Marxism list, where I condemned the 1979-1988 flagrant aggression against Afghanistan by Soviet social-imperialism and certain people very heatedly *defended* that aggression” .

Others who populated the internet lists would respond to “the Swedish individual Rolf Martens who does not even claim to uphold Hua Guofeng while still supporting his arrest of the “Gang of Four” and still claiming to oppose Deng Xiaoping. When asked [by MIM] who concretely he supported if not Hua Guofeng, Rolf Martens has no one to mention, only Mao, who was already dead.”

A flavour of Marten’s analysis and argumentation can be found in (these reformatted) pieces

  1. martens_gang of four
  2. martens_debate with olaechea
  3. martens_exposure of the rim

Clearly, Martens resembled what he criticised others for – a general without an army.

protracted people’s war as a strategy for the imperialist countries


#1    Documentary material on radical themes & occurrences

For some years now there have been efforts by some parties and organizations around the world, to try to resurrect or re-establish a new international Maoist organization that differ from the broader membership of existent groups like ILPS and ICOR . Some of these exertions involve small parties or groups (particularly in Canada and Italy) which have been theorizing the notion of the universality of people’s war (i.e. the idea that people’s war is the appropriate revolutionary strategy everywhere, even in highly urbanized, advanced capitalist countries. Whether conditions are yet ripe for this is one of the matters under debate. The arguments also have a tendency to complement their assessment of the experience of the Communist Party of Peru ). Contributing to this exploration of what constitutes the strategic advance are those groups associated with the Maoist Road magazine, and Gonzalists trend, it has seen contributions ranging from opinion blogs and general declarations to more substantial articles. Other parties and organizations would also like to see something like the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement as “an embryo of the new international” re-established, but recognize the serious difficulties in doing so at present. Not simply the short-term collapse of the revolutions in Peru and Nepal, and the degenerated lines of the parties which had been leading those revolutions, and also the bizarre political lines and behaviour of some former RIM parties, such as the RCP,USA, but also the  construction of what constitutes “Maoist” amongst the fragmentary groups who self-identify as such. What is being drawn in this selection of texts is the physiology of twenty-first century Maoism; in these contributions (of varying quality) are the identifying arguments and positions attempting to shape the political strategy for the decades to come.

Part of the point of declaring PPW as universal is to break away from the failed strategy of insurrection and instead use historical materialism to analyze past experiences and military strategies for revolution so we can draw general understandings about revolutionary war from the particular instances of it.


Document 001 General Declaration on Mao and People’s War (1998)

Document 002 For A Century of People’s Wars! A World To Win #26 (2000)


Document 003 2004 – The necessity of distinguishing between the universal and particular laws of the protracted popular revolutionary war| (n)PCI

Document 004 2004 – Protracted people’s war is the only way to make revolution | RCP(OC) Canada

Document 005 2005 – More on the question of waging revolutionary war in the imperialist countries | RCP-PCR Canada

Document 006 2011 – The Paris Commune and the socialist revolution in imperialist countries | (n)PCI

Document 007 2012 – War of Position at the Centres of Capitalism | JMP

Document 008 2012 On Protracted Peoples War as a Universal Development of Revolutionary Theory | JMP

Document 009 2013 What is Protracted People’s War? | Maosoleum collective.

Document 010 | Towards the War of Position: Gramsci in Continuity and Rupture with Marxism-Leninism| Revolutionary Initiative (Canada)

Document 011 2013 Gramsci and the PRPW |(n)PCI

Document 012 2013 Gramsci & Gonzalo Considerations on Conquering Combat Positions within the Inner Wall of Hegemony | Revolutionary Initiative (Canada)

Document 013 2013 The Strategy of Socialist Revolution in the Imperialist Countries|(n)PCI

Document 014 2015 In Defense of Protracted People’s War | PCR-RCP Canada

Document 015 2013 What We Mean When We Say Protracted People’s War, What We Don’t Mean |Black Red Guard

Document 016 2018 People’s War – The sole path to liberation|Klassenstandpunkt

Document 017 2000 The Communist Party Must Lead the Revolutionary War in the Imperialist Countries!  | PCR-RCP Canada

2b) Dissenting View

Document 018 | 2014 – Behind Enemy Lines: Strategic Theory for Revolutionary Work in the Imperialist Core | Nikolai Brown

Document 019 2018 universality of ppw |  Protracted People’s War is Not a Universal Strategy for Revolution | Mass Proletariat (Massachusetts)

  1. Summations

Document 020 1985 the false path of the west European urban guerrilla |A World to Win#4

Document 021 1986 Summing Up Five Years of People’s War in Peru A World to Win #6

Document 022 Why the Peruvian Communist Party is reviled but Marcos and the Zapatistas are loved |rustbeltrevolution

Document 023 The necessity to revise the experiences of the past | (n)PCI

Document 024 2017 OCML On People’s War in Peru, the betrayal by the leadership of the PCP and the capitulation of Gonzalo |OCML Voie Prolétarienne

Document 025 2018 Basque Country An army who learns from his own defeats is meant to win! | (n)PCI

Further Reading

T. Derbent (2006) Categories of Revolutionary Military Policy



The Gonzaloists are gathering

19jun_13Emergence of co-ordinated internet sites posting statements and news, reflective of a push to consolidate a MLM “Gonzaloist” trend, has seen momentum towards a United International Conference, which would make possible to reconstruct an international organization based on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, after the collapse of the RIM. The unity based on the defence and application of maoism as the third and superior stage of the ideology of the revolutionary proletariat and its universal character (with an emphasis on people’s war) for the different revolutionary processes in the world. This would be something very different from the proposition of an anti-imperialist international front which is advocated by organizations such as ILPS and ICOR sponsored by the MLPD, and in opposition to new revisionism, such as avakianism, prachandaism and the Right Opportunist Line in Peru.

A leading element, in this largely Latin American based trend, the Communist Party of Brazil (Red Faction) has been critical of what its described as the “rightist line that works for the split of the ICM” and “revisionist line that intends to undermine the People´s Wars” coming out from the International League of Peoples’ Struggle led by veteran communist Jose Maria Sison. Warning that so called “peace agreements” “demonstrated how an efficient liquidating road of revolutionary movements by the imperialists and their revisionist lackeys, with the example in the case of Nepal”.

The criticism brought a strong rebuke from Dan Borjal, Political Consultant of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines, for “the remarkable ignorance of Dem Volke Dienen about concrete Philippine conditions and about the Philippine revolutionary movement, and its audacity in exhibiting its idealist, ahistorical and un-Marxist way of thinking.”

More recently there was a flurry of condemnation, carried on the website Dem Volke Dienen – Serve the People, of the aggression that the Committee Red Flag suffered during the 2018 May 1st demonstration in Berlin from elements of the Jugendwiderstand [“Youth Resistance”] .Rather than explain it off as a ‘turf battle’, CRF supporters raised suggestions that it was stirred up by prompting from Utrecht.

The May 2016 meeting of marxist-leninist-maoist Parties and Organizations of Latin America set out the contours of the trend in three joint declarations, for debate and as contributions for the development of the two lines struggle in the International Communist Movement to draw the demarcation line: “Thesis on the international situation and the tasks of the International Communist Movement”, “Celebrate the 50 years of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution with People’s War until Communism” and “Resolution of Class Solidarity with the Communist Party of India (maoist) and the People’s War”.

“In these documents we advanced on the questions of utmost importance for the Proletarian World Revolution, such as the understanding of Maoism as the new, third and superior stage of the development of Marxism, the defense of the necessity of the concentric construction of the three fundamental instruments of revolution, of the militarization of the Communist Parties, the understanding of great leadership and guiding thought of each party and the revolution it struggles and leads – among other contributions of universal validity of Gonzalo Thought.”

Beside individual organisations’ websites and publications, the news site seems the main blog channel for international solidarity in the emergent trend.

Not all MLM “Gonzaloists” are on board for a United International Conference e.g. the grouping around the online magazine Communism or Red Sun magazine of the Peru People’s Movement.


This year’s campaign on the bicentenary of Karl Marx’s birthday illustrates the activities and political positions taken by the organisations involved:

Communist Party of Brazil (Red Faction)
Peoples Movement Peru (Reorganisation Committee)
Communist Party of Ecuador – Red Sun
Red Faction of the Communist Party of Chile
Maoist Organization for the Reconstitution of the Communist Party of Colombia
Revolutionary Nucleus for the reconstitution of the Communist Party of Mexico
Committee Red Flag – Germany
Committees for the Foundation of the (Maoist) Communist Party – Austria

<200th anniversary celebration>